以社區為基礎的家庭服務中心經營管理之研究-以桃園巿為例

本研究採質性研究，以桃園區家庭服務中心為例，主要目的在於探討第一線社工督導等在執行以社區為基礎之家庭服務中心經營管理實務場域狀況，邀請來自8區公辦公營及公辦民營家庭服務中心督導透過個別訪談，取得相關經營管理經驗，提供未來桃園市推動以社區為基礎家庭服務中心經營管理參考。本研究發現如下：一、以社區為基礎家庭服務中心經營管理SWOT分析結果：（一）公辦公營：優勢包括：具公部門知名度提供多元在地經營；具公部門的行政優勢；具行政部門等實務經驗網絡連結較快；中心在地化，具服務提供近便性。劣勢包括：流動率大造成經驗斷層、行政流程全要自行包辦、財務使用無彈性。機會包括：活動交流幫助網絡聯繫與合作；在地資源結合串連，形成號召動力。威脅包括：無可避免社區中政治角力與請託；政策變動造成人心動盪，需評估有多少能量再做社區；中心揹負政策落實的壓力，外部期許高；人力未到位，有限時間只能選重點做。 (二)公辦民營：優勢包括：雙重身份可彈性運用；母機構可提供補充性資源；人事穩定度相對高；新團隊包袱小，靠基礎與熱忱提供服務。劣勢包括：母機構賦於更多責任，易影響經營投入程度；巿府及組織角色的兩難；專案不穩定性影響母機構支持與投入。機會包括：無利害關係，可深入社區合作；以非營利組織使命積極發揮服務影響力。威脅包括：中央政策落日方案，公辦民營強制退場；內部斷層，經驗資源無法傳承。二、以家庭服務中心在公辦公營及公辦民營，其經營管理差異性：（一）相同點：包括專業要求、方案執行、工作內涵、對外代表性、繳交報告、交媒體案、對外統稱、執行公權力、經營方式(保守派、激進派、且戰且走)、資源均需要拜會、年輕社工員資源拜會社區經驗有限等、辦理大型活動等。（二）相異點：包括服務提供的溫度、方式、工作人員特質不同、資源整合方式與運用及轉介過程溝通、財務彈性度及行政程序複雜度與資源提供豐富度、方案執行大小與經費多寡及人事穩定度等等。本研究之主要建議如下：一、政策面向，包括：（一）政策周全再推動，降低執行不確定性；（二）政策推動建議由預防到補救措施全面性規劃，以力求平衡；（三）強化政策規劃，組織適性人才整合與分工。二、管理面向，包括：（一）藉由公私部門協力經營管理，可創造雙贏或多贏；(二）社區關係連結及資源關係維繫與合作為管理者必備能力；（三）強化組織治理與人才培力。三、實務面向，包括：（一）強化社工社區工作能力；（二）增加激勵及保健因子增加工作團隊能力；（三）提供具有溫度以人為本的服務。

關鍵字

以社區為基礎；經營管理；家庭服務中心

並列摘要

This study used qualitative research methods and took the Taoyuan Family Service Center as an example. The main purpose is to discuss the situation of frontline social work supervisor to manage the practical field which is community-based family service center. Supervisors from eight district of Taoyuan City who works at public or private management of public family service center. They provide management experiences by individual interview that will provide Taoyuan City’s government as references to administer community-based family service center.The findings of this study were as follows: 1.SWOT analysis results of community-based family service center management: (1)For public management, the advantages include having public sector administrative advantages and awareness, new staff who is more adaptable needs some particular conditions and the center is localized which can provide services conveniently. The disadvantages include high liquidity cause experience gap,social workers get through with all the administrative process and financial is inelastic.The opportunities include events exchange help network cooperation and the combination of local resources to have the power to rally supporters.The threats include inevitable political wrestling and request in the community, policy changes cause unstable in people and needs to access how much capacity for a community, the center bears the pressure of policy implementation, external expectations are high and manpower is not in place so limited time can only finish the key point. (2)For private management of public, the advantages include dual identities can be used flexibly,parent institutions can provide supplementary resources,personnel stability is relatively high and the new team has less burden that it can provide services on the basis and enthusiasm.The disadvantages include the parent institution assigns more responsibilities which can easily affect the level of commitment,the role dilemma causes the original organization role of the organization to be difficult to manifest and projects instability affect the parent institution’s support and investment.The opportunities include there is no interest so the cooperation can be deepened with the community and actively exert service influence with the mission of non-profit organizations.The threats include the sunset policy of the central policy, the forced withdrawal of private management of public,internal faults, and the inability to pass on experience resources. 2.The difference between the operation and management of the family service center in the public management and in the private management of public: (1)Similarities include professional requirements, program execution, work connotation, external representation, submission of reports, media reports, external collective name, executive public power, management methods (conservatives, radicals, and fighting and going), resources need to visit, young Social worker resources visit the community with limited experience, large-scale events, etc. (2)Dissimilarities: including the temperature and method of service provision, different staff characteristics, resource integration methods and use and communication of referral process, financial flexibility and administrative procedure complexity and resource provision richness, program execution size and amount of funding, and personnel Stability, etc. The main recommendations of this study are as follows: 1.Policy orientation includes comprehensive policy promotion, policy promotion recommendations from prevention to remedial measures comprehensive planning and strengthening policy planning, organizing the integration and division of appropriate talents. 2.Management aspects include through the joint management of the public and private sectors, a win-win or multi-win situation can be created, community relationship connection and resource relationship maintenance and cooperation are necessary for supervisors and strengthened organizational governance and talent training. 3.Practical aspects include strengthening the social worker community’s work ability, increasing rewards and health factors to increase the team’s ability and providing people-oriented services.